The Russian Invasion of the Ukraine.

[TellyKNeasuss]

A good way to end this serious crisis: Russian troops go home, all countries accept that Crimea is part of Russia, and that the Donetsk and Lugansk republics are independant, all sanctions against Russia are lifted, gas begin to flow in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

Given that a majority of the voters in Crimea voted for an independent Ukraine in 1990, why should "all countries" accept the Crimea is part of Russia?

You are incredibly naive if you believe that the invasion is only about solidifying Russian control of Crimea and the creation of a couple of microscopic Russian-speaking nations from Ukrainian territory.

 

[ahhell]

According to an article in The Independent (behind a paywall), the following countries have voiced support for Russia's invasion:

Belarus
China (sort of)
North Korea
Syria
Venezuela
Houthis Rebels, Yemen

Beyond these, condemnation seems more or less universal at the governmental level.

I guess governments occasionally get it right.
To be clear, condemning Putin is the thing they are getting right.

Regarding conscription.

Yep, its immoral. Not as immoral as genocide. I can condemn both without suggesting they are the same.

Edit to add.

6thed? Go **** yourself. Conscription when you are being invaded not the equal evil as the invader.

 

[Meadmaker]

roops go home, all countries accept that Crimea is part of Russia, and that the Donetsk and Lugansk republics are independant, all sanctions against Russia are lifted, gas begin to flow in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

But is it a good way to end the next serious crisis?

I can see how it might give us Peace In Our Time, but I'm not sure it's a good idea in the long run.


In all seriousness, I think a logical way to end it would be as above, except also add votes in Donetsk, Lugansk, and Crimea, asking voters if they want to

A) Join Ukraine
B) Join Russia
C) Form an independent state not part of either.

I don't know what would be wrong with that.

However, I'm guessing that if I were more familiar with the situation, I would recognize why that would never be acceptable to somebody in a position to veto the idea, and so, as a practical matter, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Michel H]

Given that a majority of the voters in Crimea voted for an independent Ukraine in 1990, why should "all countries" accept the Crimea is part of Russia?

In Crimea, 54% of voters voted for independence (from the Soviet Union) on December 1, 1991 (not 1990): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum#By_region.

But, 23 years later, on March 16, 2014,

The referendum asked local populations whether they wanted to join Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine. The official result from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation
...
According to survey carried out by Pew Research Center in April 2014, the majority of Crimean residents say the referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).[152]

A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on January 16–22, 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year."[153]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum)

You are incredibly naive if you believe that the invasion is only about solidifying Russian control of Crimea and the creation of a couple of microscopic Russian-speaking nations from Ukrainian territory.

This is probably one of the reasons for the current offensive and invasion by Russia.

Putin also insists that Ukraine should remain neutral, and should never become a NATO member, like the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which are NATO members since 2004.

However, it is obviously the countries which are closest to Russia which feel the most threatened by it, and therefore may have the greatest urge to join NATO for protection.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Putin thinks this will go the same way as Georgia - but I think he is very wrong about that.
He clearly has lost touch with the international community and his own countrymen, who despite massive propaganda don't seem to be on board with this.

 

[Aridas]

I came across a couple things that may be of some interest on the thread topic, so I'm dropping by. I also don't feel like reading the whole thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating information that others have poked towards already.

First up, Steve Bannon has some words to share about Ukraine.

“Ukraine’s not even a country. It’s kind of a concept. It’s not even a country .. It’s just a corrupt area that the Clinton’s turned into a colony where they can steal money out of.”

I don't really need to express how low my opinion of Bannon is, I think.

Next, an interesting anecdote -

Ukrainian ambassador says Russian platoon surrendered to Ukrainian forces claiming that they didn't know they were being sent to Ukraine to kill people.

Would be nice if true.

Next, Senator Chris Murphy has a bit of a rundown of the larger situation at hand, especially for those who could use a primer.

Transcription:

Are you having a hard time following what’s going on in Ukraine? Then this video is for you.

If you watch the news these days it can feel like Vladimir Putin is holding all the cards, holding Ukraine and the West hostage. But that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Putin is actually operating from a position of severe weakness, with a potentially disastrous invasion as his last resort. Let me tell you why.

First let’s do some quick background: Ukraine used to be a Soviet republic, and for most of its post-Soviet independence, its leaders operated in close association with Russia.

But then, in 2013, something happened. The Ukrainian people realized that a political and economic dependence on Russia was a road to nowhere. So they rose up - and they demanded closer ties with the European Union.

Putin and his cronies in Ukraine - they panicked, and they gunned down the protestors.

Now that backfired - big time. Putin’s allies were run out of the country and the nation elected ardent pro-Europe and pro-U.S. leadership.

In response, Putin invaded Crimea - and he invaded eastern Ukraine, but frankly, that just hardened the Ukrainian people’s anti-Russia sentiments.

Still, Putin’s desire to control Ukraine - it didn’t go away. So now, he’s moved 150,000 troops to Ukraine’s border, and he’s threatened a full-on invasion.

Putin hoped that this threatened invasion, all of these troops on Ukraine’s border, would upend Ukraine’s government, collapse it. Or maybe create tensions and fissures within NATO, weakening the alliance. Or result in the West folding and agreeing to his demands.

But none of that happened. In fact the opposite of that happened. The Zelensky government didn’t fall. The United States and the West rallied to support Ukraine’s government. NATO and Europe came together - rallied to support Ukraine’s sovereignty.
And Putin’s list of demands went nowhere.

The West did not give in.

Now, faced with this reality, Putin has only two ways out. Back down - or proceed with an expensive, costly, and potentially disastrous invasion of the largest country in Europe.

It’s hard to fathom what the biggest land war in Europe since 1945 will look like, but it will likely be long and deadly.

The Ukrainian people are not going to submit - they are going to fight back.
And the sanctions from the United States and the rest of the world - they’re going to be devastating - nothing like the relatively mild sanctions Russia has endured so far.

The combination of the cost of the war and the cost of the sanctions, they’re going to threaten Putin’s hold on power. And all for what? To force Ukraine back into Russia’s orbit against Ukraine’s wishes? A nation that used to rely on Russia willingly? All of this just to achieve pre-2013 status quo but with thousands dead and a Russian economy in ruins?

When you think of it that way - how is Putin holding all the cards?

Next up, over 1,700 Russians detained during anti-war demonstrations.

Next, Russian Stock Market Loses 1/3 Of Its Value Following Attack On Ukraine... and that was apparently before heavy sanctions against Russia by numerous countries were announced.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Tears for Fears tonight on Colbert

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Well, a couple of days watching Ukraine getting beat to a pulp, then a solemn farewell to the nation when we witness its corpse should create some fine-sounding pap to live down the humiliation and sooth the ruffles. A victory of sorts, for the wrong sort of, ahem, "freedom lovers".

Countdown to sorry ass, feckless pap in service of prancing before Rosy Mirror, 5, 4, 3, 2....

 

[Planigale]

Everybody is going to lose. The question is: How badly is your side going to lose?
By capitulating and giving in to all enemy demands, you lose dignity and self-worth. You may find this attractive, many don't.

There is little dignity in death, and it is permanent. I hoped that it was still recognised that 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' was a lie.

The truth is old men send young men to fight and women and children die. The truly brave action is to make the decision that will save lives not face.

 

[Oystein]

behavior that is practically enslavement.

No. Silly.

 

[jimbob]

derail on petrol (or gasoline) prices split to here

Posted By: jimbob

 

[Oystein]

There is little dignity in death...

This is not true always. In my profession (nurse, long term care), I observe frequently that there can be a lot of dignity in death, especially when the human has decided that it is best do die now or soon than to go on living like this.

and it is permanent.

So will be the suppression and dictatorship that is being forced on Ukraine, unless many people step up against it.

I hoped that it was still recognised that 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' was a lie.

The truth is old men send young men to fight and women and children die. The truly brave action is to make the decision that will save lives not face.

The truth is in this case it is the old man on the other side that is forcing young men (and old, and women, and children) to die on both sides.

If you think your stance through to its logical end, you will have said that no military defense is ever justifiable and every population that is ever attacked by any other should always completely subdue itself in pre-emptive servitude.
Surely you did not mean this.

When the other side forces an unprovoked, bloody war on you, there are no unequivocally good alternatives for anyone to pursue, but there will always be some willing to fight even for your freedom. And I can't blame them. Can you?

 

[Wildy]

I think that the West is guilty of having imposed too many sanctions on Russia (especially before this latest offensive on Ukraine), and has therefore an indirect responsability in the current situation.

So how many sanctions should they have imposed when Russia annexed Crimea? Or is it that the annexation vote is to be deemed legitimate even if it's not considered a legitimate referendum by most countries?

And I did not even mention the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

I assume your issue is the UN charter violation as the conditions under the charter hadn't been met (and considering China and Russia vetoing UNSC resolutions, would never be met). Does that also mean that you consider NATO's unilateral decision to intervene to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians to be a bad thing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Television_of_Serbia_headquarters), and the invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).

Difficult to blame someone when you have done the same thing (or even worse) yourself.

Wouldn't this go the other way as well? If these actions are to be considered absolutely reprehensible then shouldn't other countries try and act better than that instead of sinking themselves down to the immoral behaviour of others?

 

[Andy_Ross]

China is still declining to condemn Russia.

At a daily news briefing a spokesman reiterated China's position that while it respected the territorial integrity of all countries, it also understood "Russia's legitimate concerns on security issues".
He added that China still recognised Ukraine as a legitimate state but did not say whether or not Beijing would recognise the breakaway republics.

The BBC asked for a response to US President Joe Biden’s comment that “any nation which countenances Russia’s aggression in Ukraine will be stained by association”.
Reply was that a "country whose reputation will be stained is that which interfered in other nation’s internal affairs in the name of human rights and which went on to wage wars”.
He said that since 2011, the US had imposed more than 100 sanctions on Russia, yet they had not worked, and that sanctions would only cause suffering.

 

[Wildy]

Famous last words for the Border Guards on Snake Island.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Russia's defence ministry has just issued a statement maintaining that its troops are holding the Chernobyl nuclear plant in order to "protect it".
It says it is doing so to ensure that "nationalistic groups and other terrorist organisations cannot use the situation in the country in order to stage a nuclear provocation".
Russia also said that the levels of radiation in the plant's surrounding area were normal and that staff were continuing to monitor levels of radioactivity.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Russia made various claims about its gains in the war, saying troops had advanced in Donetsk and Luhansk. It also said more than 150 Ukrainian troops had surrendered and that dozens of Ukrainian military infrastructure sites, weapons and vehicles had been destroyed.

Ukraine's armed forces, meanwhile, made their own competing claims in a Facebook post earlier, saying that they were holding the line in Donetsk and Luhansk where Russian troops had had "no success" and had also pushed back Russian troops in other areas.

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has just been answering questions in a media briefing.
He repeats the line from Vladimir Putin that Moscow does not want to occupy Ukraine - but rather "demilitarise" it.
Asked whether it was Russia's wish to topple a democratic country, Lavrov implies the country cannot be called democratic.
He dismissed a question from the BBC's Steve Rosenberg, who asked him how Russia could justify the invasion of its Western neighbour.
Lavrov referenced Western interventions in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya - which he said caused thousands of casualties in the name of promoting democracy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Russian troops in northern districts of the capital Kyiv, Ukraine says
Videos show armoured vehicles advancing through northern district of Kyiv
The Russian forces who have reportedly entered the Ukrainian capital are seemingly centred around the northern district of Obolon, heavily residential area is just 9km north of Kyiv’s parliament and the city centre.

Just before 10am local time, Ukraine’s Defence Ministry tweeted that enemy Russian operatives were in the area. The defence ministry called on locals to rally and make Molotov cocktails to fight back. Several videos online appear to show armoured vehicles rolling down mostly-empty roads in Obolon.
There are also videos appearing to show fighting between civilians and people in military uniform.

Russia has lost 450 personnel, UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace says.

 

[The Don]

Russian troops in northern districts of the capital Kyiv, Ukraine says
Videos show armoured vehicles advancing through northern district of Kyiv
The Russian forces who have reportedly entered the Ukrainian capital are seemingly centred around the northern district of Obolon, heavily residential area is just 9km north of Kyiv’s parliament and the city centre.

Just before 10am local time, Ukraine’s Defence Ministry tweeted that enemy Russian operatives were in the area. The defence ministry called on locals to rally and make Molotov cocktails to fight back. Several videos online appear to show armoured vehicles rolling down mostly-empty roads in Obolon.
There are also videos appearing to show fighting between civilians and people in military uniform.

Russia has lost 450 personnel, UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace says.

As you've pointed out upthread, the number of troops that the Russians have committed would almost certainly be insufficient to conquer and hold a country of over 600,000 square kilometres with a population of over 40 million unless there was widespread support within the country. If the people of Ukraine choose to fight a guerrilla war against Russian occupation then it'll be Afghanistan all over again.

Of course it's a big call as a civilian to take up arms against an occupying power. I doubt that the Russians would have any qualms about reprisal killings if members of the Russian armed forces are killed by civilians. It's one thing to be willing to lay down your own life for your country but if you're also risking your entire family/village/town in the process, that changes the equation considerably.

If I was in Ukraine I would (just) be young enough to be covered by conscription. I have no military experience or training, I don't even play first person shooter video games, and I'm not sure how much use I'd be. Would I be willing to risk my life to protect Mrs Don - I hope I would. Would I be willing to risk Mrs Don's life to protect my country - that's a different equation.

 

[Ryokan]

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has just been answering questions in a media briefing.
He repeats the line from Vladimir Putin that Moscow does not want to occupy Ukraine - but rather "demilitarise" it.
Asked whether it was Russia's wish to topple a democratic country, Lavrov implies the country cannot be called democratic.
He dismissed a question from the BBC's Steve Rosenberg, who asked him how Russia could justify the invasion of its Western neighbour.
Lavrov referenced Western interventions in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya - which he said caused thousands of casualties in the name of promoting democracy.

He also mentioned nazis a lot. Nazis in Ukraine, supported by nazis in the west.

The story on Russian tv is that fighting is mostly in the east, where Ukrainians are for the most part surrendering, but that there is heavy resistance from far right groups supported by the west.

It's kind of ironic that far right groups in the west are actually supporting Putin.